English translation — שיחת ש"פ אמור, ג' אייר ה'תשד"מ.

This is a farbrengen that is not in the usual manner. But Chassidus teaches,

beginning in the book of Tanya¹,

that the service of man must be specifically in a manner that is not in the usual manner.

And based on this, he explains in Tanya a matter in the revealed [Torah]:

The Gemara² says that the verse³ "And you shall return and see [the difference] between one who serves G-d and one who does not serve Him" speaks about "both of them are completely righteous",

only "one who studies his chapter one hundred times is not comparable to one who studies his chapter one hundred and one times" and "one"⁴,

"even though both are righteous, they did not serve Him equally, for this one served Him more"⁵.

He explains in Tanya⁶:

"And this is because in their days, the custom was to study each chapter one hundred times...

Therefore, this one hundred and first time, which is beyond the usual practice that he was accustomed to from his youth, is equivalent to all of them and surpasses them with greater excellence and strength,

to be called 'one who serves G-d' etc."

From this it is understood,

that also the one who is called "did not serve Him",

is not simply "did not serve Him",

rather he too is a righteous person

("both of them are completely righteous"),

and he is "one who studies his chapter one hundred and one times",

and also after the hundredth time he studies Torah and does not go idle, Heaven forbid,

because if so, he is not a righteous person,

rather he is "did not serve Him" completely,

as explained in Tanya at its beginning regarding the great alarm of one who can study Torah at a certain moment and does not study.

So certainly it is speaking here that also after the hundredth time of "one who studies his chapter" he continues in involvement in Torah and mitzvos,

only because in relation to "his chapter" his study is according to his usual practice,

the verse calls him "did not serve Him";

And since Torah is a Torah of kindness,

and the explanation of the Torah was given at the time of the Giving of the Torah

(as the Rambam writes in his introduction⁷)

— therefore, together with the verse "did not serve Him", its explanation was given in the Oral Torah,

that this means "did not serve Him properly"⁸,

i.e., relative to the one who "studies his chapter one hundred and one times" who is called "one who serves G-d", he is "did not serve Him",

in the language of Rashi

(as above):

"even though both are righteous, they did not serve Him equally, for this one served Him more". But in practice, he is called in the Written Torah — "did not serve Him" simply.

Since it is stated thus in practice in the Oral Torah,

that the service of a Jew must be in a manner that is not in the usual manner,

and if not, he is called "did not serve Him" properly,

and the Alter Rebbe brings it further in Tanya,

the Written Torah of Chassidus Chabad⁹,

which also brings down general Chassidus and the inner dimension of the Torah in general in a manner of "they will be sustained from it"¹⁰ — this becomes a law that one must conduct oneself thus.

As this is regarding several matters of going beyond the letter of the law that are brought in the Shulchan Aruch — that after they are brought in the Shulchan Aruch, this becomes

(the conduct of going beyond the letter of the law)

itself a law and halacha that one must conduct oneself thus in practice.

And regarding this matter:

Even though from the standpoint of the matter, one who studies his chapter one hundred times is only "did not serve Him" properly relative to "one who serves G-d" who "served Him more" — nevertheless, after it is stated thus in the Oral Torah and additionally also in Tanya — it becomes the law,

and then if one does not conduct oneself thus, it is much more severe than "did not serve Him properly".

And regarding this matter of a farbrengen that is not in the usual manner:

This itself is learned from a Jew, that his service should be in a manner that is not in the usual manner.

Nevertheless, one must still have a grasp in intellect why today there is a farbrengen? Even if it is because service must be in a manner that is not in the usual manner — then why specifically today is the farbrengen — what makes this day different from other days?

On the contrary:

If they would have made the farbrengen on a weekday,

it would have been more "not in the usual manner" than on the day of Shabbos,

which is a usual time for a farbrengen!

Furthermore:

On the day of Shabbos, a farbrengen is a matter of "burdening the community",

and in any case it is a matter contrary to the delight of Shabbos,

it would have been better to make it on a weekday.

A farbrengen on a weekday is also a burden on the community and a cessation of work, etc.

And one must also be careful about this,

as is also expressed in a law¹¹ regarding the reading of the Torah, even

(not only regarding a matter of permission),

that on Monday and Thursday they read three and do not add to them,

"so as not to burden the congregation because they are workdays"¹² — nevertheless, this is only a matter of cessation of work,

whereas causing the opposite of Oneg Shabbat is a nullification of a commandment,

the "commandment to delight in it"¹³ through sleep, etc.¹⁴,

and although this is from the words of the Scribes¹⁵,

it is nevertheless connected to "Remember the day of Shabbat" and "Observe the day of Shabbat" from the Torah!

So the reason and cause for the farbrengen on Shabbat this is:

It is the Shabbat that comes after the morrow of 2 Iyar,

"Tiferet shebeTiferet". The birthday of the Rebbe Maharash.¹⁶

Making the farbrengen on Erev Shabbat Kodesh

(on 2 Iyar itself)

— this is indeed a cessation of work,

and especially on Erev Shabbat when one is even more preoccupied with the preparations for Shabbat;

therefore, they make the farbrengen on Shabbat,

which is close to and in continuation of Erev Shabbat

(2 Iyar),

and in addition to this:

Not only is Shabbat connected to Erev Shabbat by virtue of their proximity,

but "Whoever toils on Erev Shabbat will eat on Shabbat"¹⁷,

which is a principle regarding both days

(on Erev Shabbat and on Shabbat):

The "will eat on Shabbat" comes from the "toiled on Erev Shabbat",

and also conversely — the completion and "eating" of the "toil on Erev Shabbat" is on Shabbat. It follows that on this Shabbat is the completion and "eating" of the service on 2 Iyar

(Erev Shabbat).

As this is also so in the sixth millennium — as explained in the Ramban¹⁸,

and elucidated in the discourses of the Admur HaEmtza'i¹⁹,

that the six thousand years that the world exists correspond to the six weekdays,

and the sixth millennium corresponds to Erev Shabbat,

and the seventh millennium corresponds to Shabbat. And just as the completion and "eating" of Erev Shabbat is on Shabbat — so too is the completion and "eating" of the sixth millennium in the seventh millennium.

Therefore, it is fitting to make the farbrengen in an extraordinary manner on this Shabbat,

the Shabbat when there is the completion and "eating" of 2 Iyar,

the birthday of the Admur Maharash.

And especially since the matter of service in an extraordinary manner,

including a farbrengen in an extraordinary manner,

is particularly connected to the Rebbe Maharash:

His essence was "from the outset, leap over"²⁰. And it is also known what my revered father-in-law, the Admur, said²¹ that regarding the Rebbe Maharash, there was a Baal Shem Tov-like conduct. Which is a conduct in the manner of "from the outset, leap over". Which means, in other words — service in an extraordinary manner:

Ordinary service is not "downward",

but also not "over",

rather in the middle;

Service in an extraordinary manner is "over" ordinary measures and boundaries. And in addition, this is "from the outset, leap over" — from the outset, leap over ordinary patterns and boundaries.

Therefore, the farbrengen in an extraordinary manner is even more fitting on this Shabbat — because regarding the Rebbe Maharash, the service in an extraordinary manner was emphasized,

his chapter was different one hundred and one times,

above his ordinary manner,

as explained in the book of Tanya.

And especially since the Rebbe Maharash is also connected to the inner dimension of the Torah,

and particularly to Chabad Chassidut,

which brings about that the inner dimension of the Torah should be in a manner of "they will be sustained from Me",

blood and flesh like his flesh. And especially standing in the time of the heels of Mashiach,

when "all the ends have passed and the matter depends only on repentance"²² — and repentance is connected to the service in the manner of kisses,

which is connected to the inner dimension of the Torah,

as explained in the later parts of the book of Tanya,

in Iggeret HaTeshuvah²³ and the like.

Therefore, it is even more fitting that the farbrengen should be on this Shabbat,

the completion and "eating" of "Tiferet shebeTiferet",

the birthday of the Admur Maharash.

However, one must still understand:

Why is the farbrengen

(in an extraordinary manner)

specifically on this Shabbat in this year?

This is because according to most versions, this year is the one hundred and fiftieth year since the birth of the Admur Maharash

[In one version²⁴ it states that he was born in the year 5593,

but in most versions²⁵ it states that this was in the year 5594,

it follows that this year is the 150th year since his birth]:

Every fifty years is a Jubilee.

And it is known that a Jubilee is called ²⁶ world,

and as it is also written in I Samuel ²⁷ "and he dwelt there until the world"

(and there it was fifty years ²⁸)

— it is understood that the elevation of one hundred and fifty years is,

that these are three Jubilees,

three worlds,

which are the three worlds Beriah, Yetzirah, Asiyah,

the general and the particular,

they include all the worlds in their entirety.

It turns out that on the second of Iyar of this year is one hundred and fifty years,

three worlds,

of "from the outset, beyond"

(which began in the year 5594 at the time the Rebbe Maharash was born).

Therefore, the farbrengen in connection with the second of Iyar is specifically appropriate in this year.

In addition to the above — there is another reason for the farbrengen:

Last week they began to study together

(in fixed study sessions ²⁹)

the book of the Rambam ³⁰.

And as discussed, one of the reasons for this ³¹ — in order to fulfill the matter of studying all the laws in the Torah ³²,

and they also interpret ³³ that this means one should fulfill it by studying the book of the Rambam,

which includes within itself "the entire Oral Torah"

(as the Rambam writes in his introduction to the book).

And the matter

(that they began to study the Rambam in this manner)

— establishes for itself a special farbrengen, not in the usual manner, specifically because of this matter.

And since on this Shabbat is the "Vayechulu" ³⁴ of all the matters of last week — this is another reason for the farbrengen on this Shabbat.

All the more so when there are both reasons — the reason from the birthday of the Rebbe Maharash,

and the reason from the beginning of the fixed study of the book of the Rambam.

And in addition, there are several more reasons for the farbrengen,

if one even needs a reason for this,

because,

as above,

since the service of man must be not in the usual manner — this alone is sufficient to make the farbrengen,

and one does not need a reason for the farbrengen,

so that it remains a matter not in the usual manner and not according to limited reasons.

Since all these matters come together on this Shabbat — the matter of a farbrengen not in the usual manner

(since service must be not in the usual manner),

the matter that on this Shabbat is the completion of the birthday of the Rebbe Maharash,

"Tiferet within Tiferet",

and the matter connected with the study of the Rambam — this is certainly not by chance, Heaven forbid,

but by Divine Providence,

and they all have a connection between them.

The matter of service

(including a farbrengen)

not in the usual manner,

is the service in the manner of "from the outset, beyond"

(as above),

the unique aspect of the Rebbe Maharash.

And this is also connected with the matter of "Tiferet within Tiferet":

Tiferet is one of the ten Sefirot. And this is an attribute of the Most High,

as we say in the morning prayer — "Yours, Hashem, is the greatness, the might, and the tiferet" ³⁵.

The Gemara says ³⁶ that "greatness is the act of Creation, etc., and tiferet is the Giving of the Torah",

which is the perfection of all the matters that preceded it,

as is known that the intention of "the act of Creation" is "the Giving of the Torah",

and the existence of all "the act of Creation" depends on "the Giving of the Torah" ³⁷.

This is the matter of "tiferet" itself. But this is as if by necessity — that there must be the matter of "tiferet is the Giving of the Torah" because were it not for this, the existence of the act of Creation and all matters would be nullified.

In addition to this, there is the matter of "Tiferet within Tiferet",

within Tiferet itself, the matter of Tiferet:

When one asks a simple person what "Tiferet within Tiferet" means — he answers that "you have no business with hidden matters" ³⁸,

and he knows only simply that this means that within Tiferet itself, Tiferet stands in the perfection of revelation:

Chessed within Tiferet, etc., up to Malchut within Tiferet,

is also Tiferet,

but not as Tiferet stands in the perfection of the revelation of Tiferet,

but as it is Chessed within Tiferet,

or Malchut within Tiferet, and so forth;

in contrast, "Tiferet within Tiferet" is as Tiferet stands in the perfection of the revelation of Tiferet itself.

It follows from this that "Tiferet within Tiferet" is a matter of "from the outset, beyond":

"Tiferet" itself is the perfection of all matters,

but this is only as is necessary. "Tiferet within Tiferet" is in the perfection of Tiferet itself — in perfection and revelation — beyond measure and limitation

(not only as is necessary from the aspect of the Giving of the Torah).

This is also connected

(as above)

with service not in the usual manner,

— not only as is necessary,

but beyond habit and measure and limitation.

The matter is also connected with the general concept of the Counting of the Omer

(where "Tiferet shebeTiferet" is a detail within the Sefirah itself):

The Counting of the Omer comes as a continuation from the Exodus from Egypt and as a yearning and preparation for the Giving of the Torah ³⁹. However, the main point is the service in the continuation from the Exodus to go and receive the Torah at Mount Sinai. Therefore, we count the days not towards the coming days,

how many days remain until the Giving of the Torah ⁴⁰,

but rather how many days have passed since the Exodus

(the first day – "Today is one day",

the second day – "Today is two days" etc. ⁴¹).

As it is explicitly stated ⁴² – "And you shall count for yourselves from the morrow of the Shabbat" – "from the morrow of the Festival" ⁴³

(the first day of Pesach),

meaning that the Counting of the Omer comes specifically as a continuation of Pesach

[For this reason we do not begin counting on the first day of Pesach ⁴⁴,

but we begin "from the morrow of the Shabbat",

specifically in connection with Pesach].

The concept of the Exodus from Egypt is – a going out from constraints and limitations. This means not only from constraints and limitations of the side of impurity,

but also from holiness,

as explained also in Tanya ⁴⁵ and in many places ⁴⁶) the concept of going out from constraints and limitations of holiness.

And on the contrary:

The simple meaning of the concept of Pesach is from the term "And He passed over – and skipped" ⁴⁷ from Above,

and as our sages, of blessed memory, said ⁴⁸ on the verse ⁴⁹ "He skips over the mountains" – "At the time that [Moses] came

(Moses)

and said to Israel, 'In this month you will be redeemed,'

they said to him,

'Moses our teacher, how can we be redeemed? Did not the Holy One, blessed be He, say to Abraham ⁵⁰ "And they shall enslave them and oppress them for four hundred years,"

and we have only two hundred and ten years in our hands?'

He said to them, 'Since He desires your redemption, He does not look at your calculations, but skips over the mountains ⁴⁹...

He skips over the calculations and over the appointed times...

And in this month you will be redeemed.'"

And it is understood that this Pesach and skipping

(over the end)

from Above is certainly a skip within holiness itself.

It follows from this that the concept of the Exodus from Egypt,

in continuation of which comes the Counting of the Omer and "Tiferet shebeTiferet" – is a concept of "from the outset, going beyond",

service not in the usual manner,

a skip and leap within holiness itself.

And in addition, the Counting of the Omer

(including "Tiferet shebeTiferet")

is also a preparation for the Giving of the Torah – which is connected with the true freedom of the Jewish people,

also a concept of "from the outset, going beyond",

service not in the usual manner.

Accordingly, it is also understood that this service not in the usual manner itself

(connected with "Tiferet shebeTiferet")

is a service not in the usual manner in matters of Torah – one who reviews his chapter one hundred times and one more time,

as is explained in the book of Tanya,

as above.

The above also has a connection with the study of the book Yad HaChazakah:

In connection with the proposal to study the book Yad,

with the reasons for this,

from the aspect of the unity of Israel and the obligation to study all the laws of the Torah – one can ask the same question as above:

What makes one day different from another?

The concept of studying all the laws of the Torah has already been stated in books for many years,

and it has also been indicated that this can be fulfilled by studying the book Yad of the Rambam – so what suddenly happened this year that an awakening came and one comes to him and says:

"Listen up – one must study Rambam?!"

Well, it could be that someone

(or several)

did not fulfill this obligation – does one therefore need to make a commotion and noise throughout the entire world,

with the intention that this should specifically reach each and every one simply, that one should actually study the book Yad of the Rambam?!

This itself is the explanation of this – as above:

One demands of a Jew that he perform his service,

including his Torah study,

not in the usual manner. There is indeed a mode of service of "I have not repeated",

but in addition there must also be service in the manner of "new things" ⁵¹,

not in his usual and natural way,

and this itself should become his usual way.

Thus, one of the ways in this is – by doing something not in the usual manner of previous years and studying the book of the Rambam.

And especially when one finds oneself in a state of "slumber" – one must then awaken the person with an unusual matter,

through commotion and noise and tumult. As it is stated regarding the shofar blast ⁵² that "Although the shofar blast on Rosh Hashanah is a decree of the Scripture, it contains a hint,

namely: Awake, sleepers, from your sleep, and slumberers, arise from your slumber":

Since one is in a state of slumber,

one needs an awakening not in the usual manner:

One needs a hint,

and a shofar,

and blowing and tumult etc.!

One of the ways in the arousal to learn the Rambam itself

(which itself is an avodah not in the regular manner)

—is also through making a farbrengen not in the regular manner specifically for the sake of the new order of study of the Rambam.

From this one sees the connection of the study of the book of the Rambam to avodah not in the regular manner and "from the outset, going beyond."

And in addition to this, also the manner of study of the book of the Rambam itself is in a manner of "from the outset, going beyond,"

as follows.

From this one must take a directive in actual deed,

at least as much as is relevant to action on the day of Shabbos. And as explained in Iggeres HaKodesh⁵³ that in thought there is action in thought,

speech in thought, and thought in thought. So on the day of Shabbos, at least action in thought is relevant.

Every matter must stand in halachah—so too the matter of action on the day of Shabbos must stand in halachah:

The law is⁵⁴ that "we attend to the needs of the community on Shabbos."

That is, even on Shabbos a directive regarding actual deed is relevant—the resolutions and the preparations for how to conduct oneself in actual deed in the days after Shabbos.

Furthermore:

The law is⁵⁵

[as was discussed recently in connection with the Rambam,

as has already been printed⁵⁶]

that when one accepts a good resolution to do a good thing, one receives the reward for it already at the time of the resolution.

From this it is understood that already at the time of the good resolution one has the matter of the deed,

because if not, it would not be possible to pay him reward for it at that time:

Reward means that one pays for what someone has done. Therefore it is necessary that the reward come after the one has performed the labor for which he receives the reward. It is not possible to give reward for a thing before one does the thing or when one is still in the middle of the labor. True, "you shall not delay the wages of a hired worker,"⁵⁷

but that itself is after the one has already performed the labor,

at that time the law is that one must pay him for it immediately.

From this it is understood,

since one pays someone reward for the very good resolution,

this is a proof that he already has at that time the matter of the deed,

and therefore it is possible to pay him his reward already at that time. And the reason for this:

Because at the time of the resolution he, on his part, was completely ready to do it in actual deed,

only because of a reason "a lion is lying in the way"⁵⁸,

it is considered as if he did it,

therefore he already receives reward.

From this it is also understandable in our matter:

On the day of Shabbos a directive regarding action is relevant not only from the aspect that one accepts at that time the resolution to do a deed later

(we attend to the needs of the community on Shabbos),

but also at the time of the resolution itself it is considered as if he has already done the thing in deed and he already receives reward for it. Because already on Shabbos he, on his part, is completely ready to do the deed,

only because it is Shabbos he cannot do it,

therefore it is considered as if he already has the deed,

and therefore he receives reward for it.

This itself, however, must be understood:

In actual fact, at the time of the resolution he did not do the actual deed,

and what difference does it make why he did not do it—let us say because "a lion is lying in the way,"

and he is not guilty and is an ones—but in actual fact "we do not say it is as if he did it"⁵⁹,

even though "the Torah exempts an ones"⁶⁰—why is his resolution considered as if he did it in actual deed and therefore he already receives reward for it at that time,

even though in actual fact he did not do it?

The explanation of this is understood from another halachah:

The Rambam rules⁶¹,

"One whom the law requires that we compel to divorce his wife and he does not wish to divorce,

a Jewish court...

lashes him until he says 'I want,' and he writes the get, and it is a valid get. And why is this get not invalidated, since he is coerced...

Because one is only called coerced when he is pressured and forced to do something that he is not obligated to do by Torah law...

But one whose evil inclination overpowered him to nullify a mitzvah...

and he was beaten until he did that which he was obligated to do...

this is not coercion from others, but rather he coerced himself with his evil mind. Therefore, this one who does not want to divorce,

since he wants to be part of Israel and he wants to perform all the mitzvos and distance himself from transgressions, and it is his inclination that overpowered him,

once he is beaten until his inclination weakens and he says 'I want,'

he has already divorced willingly."

(And as it stands regarding offerings⁶² — "you shall sacrifice it willingly,"

"he shall offer it willingly" — "we compel him until he says 'I want'"⁶³).

That is to say:

Since in his innermost being "he wants to be part of Israel and he wants to perform all the mitzvos etc.,"

only there is an external cause that coerces him — "it is his inclination that overpowered him" — therefore, at the moment he merely expresses externally, in the most literal sense

(in speech)

"I want,"

even though he says this only externally, due to the beating and compulsion,

this alone is sufficient

(because since he wants to transgress the will of Hashem only externally, his external aspect (his speech) is sufficient to nullify that)

and the external aspect

(that he says "I want")

joins together with his true inner self

(that he wants to perform all the mitzvos etc.),

and that which lies in between is not counted,

and it is a "valid get."

With this, one will also understand our matter:

When a Jew accepts a good resolution, and on his part

(the person)

he is completely ready to fulfill it in actual deed at the time of action,

but due to external causes not dependent on him,

specifically not due to coercion of the inclination

(as is the case regarding the words of the Rambam),

but due to causes from Above,

"a lion lies on the path,"

he cannot fulfill the resolution in actual deed at the time of action,

as in our case,

that he accepts the resolution on Shabbos and is then completely ready to fulfill it in actual deed,

only then he cannot do it in actual deed due to the holiness of the Shabbos day

(a cause from Above)

— then on his part,

the person,

he has the aspect of the deed in perfection,

therefore he receives reward for it.

From this it is also understood regarding all the directives of this Shabbos that must be taken out regarding actual deed, beginning already from this Shabbos — that even in those matters that he cannot do in actual deed on Shabbos,

he must then accept a good resolution to do it,

and it is then considered as if he did it, and he already receives reward for it,

and when the appropriate time comes, he must fulfill it in actual deed.

All the more so, matters that can be fulfilled in actual deed also on the Shabbos day — such as the study of the daily portion in the Rambam,

which can be done on Shabbos,

and certainly one did this on Shabbos.

And on the contrary — the study of the Rambam has a special connection specifically with the Shabbos day:

Shabbos is connected with Moshe Rabbeinu

(as explained elsewhere).

The main aspect of Moshe in relation to the Jewish people is — that Moshe received the Torah at Sinai and transmitted it to the Jews;

and the main aspect of the Torah that Moshe needed to transmit to the Jews is — definitive halachos,

without reasons and pilpul.

He also gave the Jews "pilpul of Torah" — but this he did out of his good will,

as the Sages said⁶⁴,

that Moshe received the entire Torah in order to transmit it to the Jews,

except for pilpul of Torah "that was given to Moshe,"

but because "a good eye will be blessed"⁶⁵ "he acted with a good eye and gave it to Israel."

It follows,

that the main aspect of Moshe Rabbeinu in relation to the Jews is — that he transmitted to them definitive halachos.

According to the simple understanding of the matter of the Giving of the Torah — for all Jews:

Then all the Jews heard the Ten Commandments,

which are definitive halachos without reasons and pilpul.

This is the content of the book "Mishneh Torah" by the Rambam - a book of all the final halachos without pilpul and reasons. It is known the dispute between the Rambam and the Rosh,

as the Alter Rebbe writes in Kuntres Acharon on Hilchos Talmud Torah ⁶⁶,

that according to the opinion of the Rambam, for knowledge of the halachos one does not need to know the halachos with their reasons,

and according to this approach he composed his book "Mishneh Torah" "without giving reasons for the halachos at all, and made it to rule from it alone, as he writes in his introduction there that a person will not need any other composition in the world etc., that a person first reads the Written Torah and then etc."

but the Rosh ⁶⁷ holds that one must also know the reasons.

And even though the Alter Rebbe leans somewhat,

or entirely,

to the opinion of the Rosh

(as we see from the fact that he composed his Shulchan Aruch "halachos with their reasons" ⁶⁸ - it is nevertheless simple that when one learns the book of the Rambam,

one must learn it according to the method of the Rambam (according to which he composed this book itself).

From this we see the special connection of the study of the book of the Rambam with Moshe Rabbeinu - because in the book of the Rambam the main essence of the Torah of Moshe in relation to the Jewish people is emphasized

(according to the command)

- final halachos

(in contrast, pilpul came only from "He who has a generous eye shall be blessed").

And this has a special connection with Shabbos

(which is connected with Moshe Rabbeinu):

Shabbos in general is connected with Torah ⁶⁹,

and as our Sages said ⁷⁰ "according to everyone, the Torah was given on Shabbos".

Within the Torah itself, Shabbos is especially connected with the inner dimension of the Torah - which is a study in a way of rest and without clarifications and dispute.

[And based on this the law is understood ⁷¹ that "on Shabbos they do not read to them (children) for the first time a portion that they have never read before, because of the burden of Shabbos, but they review with them portions that they read during the week",

and as we also see the custom of Israel that on the day of Shabbos they do not send young schoolchildren to cheder and the like to learn Torah. At first glance this is a very great wonder,

because the existence of the world is dependent on "the breath of young schoolchildren" ⁷² - the explanation of this is,

that this is because of "the burden of Shabbos",

because on Shabbos the study of Torah itself must be in a way of rest - "they review with them portions that they read during the week" ⁷¹,

but not a new portion (that they have never read before)].

It is known the difference between the inner dimension of the Torah and the revealed aspect of the Torah,

as explained in Iggeres HaKodesh ⁷³:

In the revealed aspect of the Torah there is dispute and difficulties,

the general concept of clarifications,

but in the inner dimension of the Torah "there is no difficulty etc. and no dispute",

there is no concept of clarifications and struggle,

only a study in a way of rest. And this is the difference between Shabbos and weekday ⁷⁴:

Shabbos is a day of rest and then there is no concept of clarifications as on weekdays.

And within the revealed aspect of the Torah itself, this is the difference between the Talmud Yerushalmi,

where there is not so much pilpul etc.,

and the Talmud Bavli where there is an abundance of give-and-take and pilpul ⁷⁵.

And if this is so regarding the Torah of Rashbi that "there is no difficulty etc. and no dispute"

(as explained in Iggeres HaKodesh there)

- then all the more so is it so in the Torah of Moshe Rabbeinu,

that it is a study in a way of rest. One cannot say that his manner of study

(of Moshe)

was entirely without pilpul,

because in the Gemara it states that he received pilpul of Torah. Rather, the pilpul itself was in a manner like pilpul in the Talmud Yerushalmi.

And since the book "Mishneh Torah" of the Rambam is a book of halachos without reasons and pilpul etc.

(similar to the Torah of Moshe in relation to the Jewish people,

similar to the Ten Commandments,

without reasons etc.)

- it is understood that this is the part of Torah especially connected with the day of Shabbos,

the study of Torah without difficulties and dispute and pilpulim and give-and-take etc.

Based on this one will also understand how the study of the book of the Rambam is connected with "from the outset, go over":

When one studies a concept in intellect in a way of pilpul and asks questions on it and answers etc. - one engages with the person studying. This is not a way of study in the manner of "from the outset, go over".

But when one studies the book of the Rambam - which contains final halachos without the reasons and without pilpul and difficulties and contradictions etc. - one must study it in a manner of "we will do and we will hear" and accept that this is the halacha.

That this is an order of "from the outset, over":

The Rambam rules the halachah this way, "from the outset, over",

and one must accept it in a manner of "we will do and we will hear", not knowing the reason and without asking questions and without engaging in pilpul in it — rather, accept it with acceptance of the yoke that this is the halachah.

And in the language of our Sages⁷⁶ — "If it is a halachah

(that you received from your teacher),

we will accept;

if it is for judgment, there is a response":

If this is a matter of judgment,

which was given over to man to understand with his intellect, etc.,

he says that "there is a response",

until it is possible for him to refute it. This is not "from the outset, over".

However, if this is a "tradition" — "we will accept". He accepts it without any questions.

And about this the Rambam composed his book — without the reasons and not in a manner of pilpul,

but in a manner of "it is a tradition, we will accept" — "from the outset, over":

This is the halachah which one must accept without any questions, etc.

Based on the above, the connection of all these matters on this Shabbos is understood — the farbrengen

(including a farbrengen)

not in the usual manner,

the birthday of the Rebbe Maharash,

"Tiferes shebeTiferes",

"from the outset, over",

this Shabbos,

and the study of the Rambam's book.

And as mentioned,

from this one must derive a directive in actual deed,

beginning with the study of the Rambam,

also on the Shabbos day,

and on the contrary — this has a special connection specifically with Shabbos

(as above),

and also on the days thereafter.

And this becomes a proximate preparation for the study of the Torah of Moshiach from the mouth of Moshiach⁷⁷,

which is also included in the Torah of Moshe that was given at Matan Torah⁷⁸,

as is known that Matan Torah will not be again⁷⁹ and at the time of Matan Torah the entire Torah was given,

including the Torah of Moshiach⁸⁰,

And just as in the Torah of Moshe, "the deed is the main thing"⁸¹ and one must derive from it a directive in deed,

so too regarding the Torah of Moshiach.

And on the contrary — the study of the Torah of Moshiach will be in a manner of seeing⁸²,

"and they will see"⁸³,

and together with this — in a revealed manner,

"and it will be revealed"⁸³,

not only in the world of Atzilus,

but in the world of halachah

(which is the subject of the Rambam's book)

— the physical and material world of Asiyah,

below ten handbreadths.

And simply — that the true and complete redemption comes,

and in a manner of "immediately they are redeemed"⁸⁴,

And Moshe and Aharon with them⁸⁵,

and "they will awaken and sing, dwellers of the dust"⁸⁶,

and the Rambam among them,

and my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe,

and so forth — all those who fill their place,

and all the tzaddikim and great ones of Israel — among them.

And they will be together with all Jews,

"with our young and with our old, etc., with our sons and with our daughters"⁸⁷,

"a great congregation"⁸⁸,

And particularly after all Jews together,

"with our young and with our old, etc., with our sons and with our daughters",

study the Rambam's book,

as the Rambam wanted that it be studied,

in a manner of "you are standing today...

before Hashem your God, etc."⁸⁹,

from "your heads, your tribes" and all the types enumerated in the subsequent verse,

including "your little ones" and "your wives",

until "your woodcutters" and "your water drawers"⁸⁹,

and all together — "all of you"⁸⁹ as one,

as one unit⁹⁰,

until literally as one unit⁹¹. That it is in a manner of actuality

(as is known the explanation of my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe⁹² in the language of the Tanya⁹³ "literally a part of God from above").

And all Jews together,

"all of you as one",

go to the Holy Land,

to the holy mountain,

the Temple Mount,

to the third Beis HaMikdash,

and speedily in our days, literally.

In connection with the study of the Rambam's book, several methods were proposed in this — according to and commensurate with the value of the learners:

To study three chapters of the book "Mishneh Torah" each day.

For those who, for some reasons, it is not possible for them to complete three chapters each day,

they should study one chapter a day.

And those who are not able to study the book "Yad HaChazakah" — should study each day in the Rambam's Sefer HaMitzvos the mitzvos that correspond to the halachos

(and mitzvos)

that the first type studies

(three chapters a day)

in the book Yad HaChazakah,

it will be a kind of summary of the length and breadth in the book Yad,

as the Rambam writes in his introduction to his Sefer HaMitzvos,

that this is like an "introduction" to the book Yad,

because in Sefer HaMitzvos all the 613 mitzvos are enumerated and brought with a brief explanation, which are explained in detail and at length in the book Yad.

According to the principle⁹⁴

(as discussed⁹⁵)

that each person is both an influencer and a recipient,

one must say that also in the category of those who study Sefer HaMitzvos there is an advantage that they can influence the highest category,

those who study three chapters a day in Sefer HaYad.

And superficially, according to the above, it would seem that the category of those who study Sefer HaMitzvos has no advantage over the category of those who study Sefer HaYad HaChazakah,

because they have only a kind of abbreviation of the length and breadth found in Sefer HaYad — contrary to the principle that each one must have an advantage through which he is the influencer.

And even when one says that "the general includes two hundred maneh,"⁹⁵

one must say that in the "maneh" there is an advantage over the "two hundred,"

only in this matter it is "the general includes two hundred maneh."

Therefore, there must be an advantage in the category of those who study Sefer HaMitzvos over the category of those who study Sefer HaYad.

The explanation of this is:

In Sefer HaYad there are only the halachos,

without the reasons and without the sources. And even the sources that the Rambam indicates for his halachos in several of his responsa — they can be counted on one hand,

and in the vast majority of cases the sources are not indicated.

From this it is understood that it was the Rambam's intention that his Sefer HaYad should be specifically without reasons and sources. For, knowing the great precision and completeness of the Rambam,

it is understood

that if it had been a matter of adding the reasons and sources to Sefer HaYad,

regardless of how busy the Rambam was,

he would certainly have found time to do so. Since he did not do so,

it is proven that Sefer HaYad must be specifically without reasons and sources,

because in this there is an advantage.

On the other hand, there is an advantage specifically when one indicates the sources for a matter,

and gives the reasons for it,

because then each person can delve more into the matter, etc. — as is understood from the Rambam's responsum⁹⁶ that he later saw the advantage of indicating the sources, etc.

And especially according to the system of the Rosh and the Alter Rebbe

(as above, section 10)

that in order to rule on a halachah one must know the reasons.

And each of the two advantages

(studying without the sources and reasons,

or with the sources and reasons)

is seen emphatically in the two books of the Rambam,

Sefer HaYad and Sefer HaMitzvos:

In Sefer HaYad he writes the halachos without the reasons and sources. This has the advantage of this manner.

In Sefer HaMitzvos the Rambam writes the sources,

from where it is learned in Gemara, etc.

And when one looks into the sources that the Rambam indicates, one also sees the reasons for it.

[In the enumeration of the mitzvos in Sefer HaYad he also indicates the verses where the mitzvos are stated — "as it is said" such and such;

but this does not provide understanding of the matter,

because it is only a source in the Written Torah,

that even one who does not know what he is saying can recite a blessing over the Torah there.⁹⁷ Therefore, when the Rambam writes "as it is said" in the Written Torah, this can be in a manner that one relies on the Rambam that this is the explanation of the verse.

However, when he indicates the sources of Sefer HaMitzvos in the Oral Torah,

where understanding and comprehension are relevant,

one can look there and see the reasons.]

It follows from this,

that those who study Sefer HaMitzvos have an advantage which they influence to those who study Sefer HaYad:

When those who study Sefer HaYad every day wish to know the sources and reasons for the halachos and mitzvos that they study in the daily lesson,

they need to ask those who have studied in Sefer HaMitzvos the mitzvos that correspond to the halachos

(mitzvos)

in Sefer HaYad of that day.

[And although when one studies Sefer HaYad,

one studies it with one of the commentaries where sources, etc., are indicated — but in the Rambam himself there are no sources,

however, in Sefer HaMitzvos one has the sources from the Rambam himself.]

Continuing from the above

(the advantage of studying with sources and reasons, etc.)

— another manner in study is proposed:

Just as it was proposed for those who are not able to study Sefer HaYad that they should study Sefer HaMitzvos,

one must also have advice for those who are able to study more than three chapters a day.

And in addition to this:

When one learns three chapters a day, one cannot learn all three chapters with the utmost in-depth analysis,

rather it is more like a study for rote memorization,

in this there may be lacking the fulfillment of the obligation of Torah study in the manner of “to expound it”⁹⁸,

to innovate etc.⁹⁹,

to look up the sources and learn with the reasons — because when learning three chapters a day it is difficult for everyone to learn all the laws with in-depth analysis and dialectic,

to look up the sources,

to learn it according to the inner dimension of the matter,

and so forth.

And sometimes — it can also happen that the study be in a superficial manner.

One must have advice so that there should also be the matter of “to expound it”,

in this study of the Rambam.

On the other hand,

this should not interfere with the matter of the unity of Israel through the fact that all Jews learn the same three chapters every day

(or the corresponding commandments in Sefer HaMitzvos — for those who are not connected to the study of the Yad HaChazakah).

Therefore, a fourth manner of study is proposed

(in this very third manner):

That those who have more time and those who are connected to this

(and in doubt — it is worthwhile to do this),

each according to his understanding and according to his measure — should study

(in addition to the daily quota)

one law,

at least one detail

(from the daily quota)

with in-depth analysis and dialectic,

to look up the sources,

study according to the inner dimension of the matter etc.

Based on this, it is also understood why there is no contradiction in that which was explained¹⁰⁰ one matter in the quota with in-depth analysis and how this is according to the inner dimension of the matters etc. — for seemingly,

the Yad HaChazakah is only laws without reasons and dialectic and in-depth analysis? Rather, there is also an advantage in studying with in-depth analysis with the reasons etc.,

therefore it is worthwhile that one should study at least one law or detail in the daily quota with in-depth analysis with the sources etc.

Therefore, last Shabbos one matter was also explained, at least with in-depth analysis,

and according to the inner dimension of the matters.

And in continuation of this, this is the place to complete that which was spoken about recently:

Recently it was explained that the Rambam prefaces at the beginning of his book

(before his introduction)

with the verse “Then I will not be ashamed when I look upon all Your commandments.” And it was explained according to the inner dimension of the matters,

relying that the simple explanation would be understood on its own.

In practice, they latched onto the inner explanation,

and forgot the simple explanation. At least now the simple explanation will be explained as to why the Rambam prefaces with this verse:

“Then I will not be ashamed etc.” simply means — “Then”,

specifically after some time,

after a certain matter will occur,

only then “when I look upon all Your commandments” will it be “I will not be ashamed”,

but beforehand it is still possible “I will be ashamed” at the time of “when I look upon all Your commandments”.

That is, in this verse two times are emphasized:

The first time when it is still possible “I will be ashamed” at the time of “when I look upon all Your commandments”,

and the second time when “I will not be ashamed”.

What does this simply mean:

When one learns about all the commandments in the Written Torah

(the Five Books of Moses),

it is possible “when I look upon all Your commandments”,

because all the commandments are in the Written Torah,

but when it comes to fulfilling the commandments in practice — he does not know how to fulfill them from the study of the Written Torah alone. For example — the commandment of tefillin:

From how the commandment is stated in the Written Torah one cannot know how to fulfill it in practice.

And so too regarding all the commandments. As explained at length in Iggeret HaKodesh¹⁰¹. Therefore,

at the time of “when I look upon all Your commandments” after he learns the Written Torah — he is ashamed,

“I will be ashamed”,

because he does not know how to fulfill the commandments in practice.

In order to fulfill the commandments in practice one must learn the explanation of the Written Torah in the Oral Torah

(as explained in Iggeret HaKodesh there),

“All the commandments that were given to Moses at Sinai were given with their explanation”,

and “their explanation” is the Oral Torah,

which is the entire Yad HaChazakah,

which presents “in clear language” the entire Oral Torah,

all the definitive laws,

how one must fulfill them in practice — then only — “Then” — after he has studied the Yad HaChazakah — “I will not be ashamed when I look upon all Your commandments”,

because one then knows how to fulfill all the commandments in practice.

This is the simple explanation as to why the Rambam prefaces his book Yad HaChazakah

(which presents all the commandments in a clear manner)

with this verse.

And in addition, they discussed at that time the explanation according to the inner dimension of the matters — based on what is explained in Chassidus, the difference between Torah and mitzvos,

that Torah is connected with the person and mitzvos are connected with the object of the world. And therefore, through "when I look at all Your commandments," it gives strength, assistance, and help to the person who is in the world, so that with him there should be "I will not be ashamed" at the time of "when I look at all Your commandments,"

as was discussed at length at that time.

Just as the Rambam brings a verse before the introduction

("Then I will not be ashamed, etc.")

— he also brings a verse before each book of the fourteen books. For example — before Sefer HaMada, he brings the verse¹⁰² "Draw out Your kindness to those who know You, and Your righteousness to the upright of heart."

And so on, he brings a verse before each book.

And it can be said that this corresponds to what the Rambam writes in his introduction to the book, explaining the name of the book "Mishneh Torah" — "Because a person first reads the Written Torah, and afterwards reads this and knows from it the entire Oral Torah, and does not need to read any other book between them" — therefore the Rambam arranged his entire book

(of the fourteen books)

in a manner that before each book comes a verse — because "a person first reads the Written Torah";

and afterwards come the laws — "and afterwards reads this."

One can ask on this the question:

The Rambam writes that "a person first reads the Written Torah,"

which Written Torah refers to the Five Books of Moses,

whereas all these verses that the Rambam brings before his books are from the Prophets and Writings,

not from the Five Books of Moses?

The answer to this is:

In the Prophets and Writings there are no new matters relative to what is stated in the Five Books of Moses,

because "a prophet is not permitted to innovate a matter, etc.,"

as the Rambam rules¹⁰³

(in the current lesson of Rambam,

according to the division of three chapters per day).

That is, all matters in Nevi'im and Ketuvim are included in the Chumash. And furthermore, Nevi'im and Ketuvim together with the Five Books of Moses constitute the twenty-four sacred books,

regarding which there was a commandment to write them

(the Written Torah¹⁰⁴),

whereas what comes after the twenty-four books is the Oral Torah,

regarding which "matters that are oral you are not permitted to say in writing."¹⁰⁴

On the other hand — Nevi'im and Ketuvim are a level lower than the Five Books of Moses,

and in Nevi'im and Ketuvim the matters that are in the Chumash come out more revealed,

Nevi'im and Ketuvim are like "explanations" of what is stated in the Chumash.

And afterwards it comes out even more revealed and explicit — in the Oral Torah,

which is the "explanation" of the Written Torah

(as the Rambam begins in his introduction).

But the Oral Torah is already an entirely different category,

not written matters,

from the sacred books.

It follows from this,

that Nevi'im and Ketuvim are like a "middle term" between the Written Torah

(the Five Books of Moses)

and the Oral Torah,

including the book of the Rambam which presents "the entire Oral Torah."

Based on this, it is understood why the Rambam begins his books with verses specifically from Nevi'im and Ketuvim and not from the Five Books of Moses — because the order is:

"A person first reads the Written Torah,"

i.e., the Five Books of Moses,

and afterwards the Rambam brings verses from Nevi'im and Ketuvim before the books in his Yad

("the entire Oral Torah")

— as a middle term between the Written Torah

(the Five Books of Moses)

and the Yad

(the Oral Torah),

"and afterwards reads this,"

in the fourteen books of the Yad.

Since in the lessons of Rambam we are currently holding at Sefer HaMada — we will explain the verse with which the Rambam precedes the book

(in the manner that they explained the verse he brings before the introduction)

— "Draw out Your kindness to those who know You, and Your righteousness to the upright of heart."

And instead of relying that one should grasp the simple explanation on one's own — we will first explain the simple explanation of this,

and afterwards add the explanation according to the inner dimension of the matters:

In Sefer HaMada it discusses

(especially at its beginning)

as its name implies — about knowledge of Hashem. Therefore, as an introduction to this, the Rambam brings the verse "Draw out Your kindness to those who know You,"

a verse that discusses "those who know You,"

those who have knowledge of Divinity,

And the verse says that the reward that "those who know You" receive — is "Draw out Your kindness":

They receive kindness,

and not just kindness,

but "Your kindness,"

kindness from the Supreme One,

who is kindness without limit.

And one receives "Your kindness" in a manner of "draw out":

not through the effort of the person,

but it draws itself to him.

The conclusion of Sefer HaMada is Hilchos Teshuvah. And this corresponds to the concluding verse that the Rambam brings — "and Your righteousness to the upright of heart."

"For the inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth"¹⁰⁵,

consequently, by man from his very nature there is no "upright heart." Until it can be that he has a state of "the heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked"¹⁰⁶,

a "crooked heart." And regarding this, "He created the Torah as a remedy"¹⁰⁷ in order to transform his heart so that it should be an upright heart. And this is generally through Torah and mitzvos,

and particularly through teshuvah — for the essence of teshuvah is in the heart¹⁰⁸,

and teshuvah causes that a person should have an upright heart.

And this is the connection of the conclusion of Sefer HaMada — Hilchos Teshuvah — with the verse "to the upright of heart",

because through teshuvah one becomes "upright of heart."

And for this one receives the reward — "and Your righteousness to the upright of heart",

and not merely tzedakah,

but "Your righteousness",

of the Holy One, blessed be He,

tzedakah without limit.

And also in a manner of "drawn out",

because "drawn out" simply applies both to "Your kindness" and to "Your righteousness."

And from this — that it says "Your righteousness"

(and not merely tzedakah)

— there is also a practical difference — simply according to the revealed aspect

(since we are now discussing the simple explanation,

according to the revealed aspect):

The law is that the giving of tzedakah must be according to the value of the giver's assets¹⁰⁹.

Regarding this, it is understood that when it says "Your righteousness",

the righteousness of the Holy One, blessed be He,

this is a tzedakah according to the value of the assets of the Holy One, blessed be He — a tenth of His assets,

or the optimal mitzvah — a fifth¹¹⁰,

and even more:

According to what is explained in Igeres HaTeshuvah¹¹¹ that when it comes to redeeming one's soul through tzedakah, "one need not be concerned about 'one should not spend more than a fifth'¹¹²";

and since regarding the Above it is stated¹¹³ "in all their affliction, He is afflicted"

(with a vav),

it is understood that the giving of tzedakah to Jews pertains to the redemption of the soul of the Holy One, blessed be He

(as it were),

therefore He spends on this more than a fifth of His assets. And since His assets are without limit — it is thus understood how much more than a fifth of that is!

The explanation of this verse for Sefer HaMada — more according to the inner aspect of matters:

At the beginning of Sefer HaMada, where it discusses knowledge of Hashem — regarding which the verse "draw out Your kindness to those who know You" applies — one finds a contradiction:

The Rambam begins Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah with "the foundation of foundations and the pillar of wisdoms is to know that there is a First Existence, etc.",

and then explains in detail the matters which a person must understand and have in them knowledge of Hashem according to his understanding and comprehension — "and if it would arise in the mind, etc."¹¹⁴,

"and knowledge of this matter is a positive commandment, etc."¹¹⁵.

And together with this he says that¹¹⁶ "the truth of the matter, man's mind does not comprehend and cannot attain it or investigate it,

and this is what the verse says¹¹⁷ 'can you find the investigation of G-d, etc.'";

"there is no power in the mind of a living man, who is composed of body and soul, to attain the truth of this matter in its clarity"¹¹⁸ etc. — that one cannot understand the Above. And prima facie, this is a contradiction in his own words?!

And one can say the explanation of this,

that this is answered by the verse that the Rambam brings as an introduction to this — "draw out Your kindness to those who know You":

It was discussed in the farbrengens of before¹¹⁹,

that in the knowledge of Hashem there are two matters — as emphasized at the conclusion of the Rambam's book — "at that time

(in the future to come)

etc., the Jews will be great sages and know hidden matters and will comprehend knowledge of their Creator according to the capacity of man,

as it is stated¹²⁰ 'for the earth will be filled with knowledge of Hashem as the waters cover the sea'":

The first thing will be that "they will comprehend knowledge of their Creator according to the capacity of man" — comprehension of affirmation,

each one according to his level. Afterwards there will be an even higher thing — "the earth will be filled with knowledge of Hashem as the waters cover the sea",

not only "according to the capacity of man"

(comprehension of affirmation),

where the limitation of the man still remains,

but comprehension of negation,

through which one has a knowledge much higher than "according to the capacity of man" through comprehension of affirmation,

until one becomes completely nullified and becomes one thing with the Above Himself — "as the waters cover the sea",

and in revelation one sees only the existence of Hashem

(not the existence of man),

similar to the waters of the sea which cover everything that is in the sea,

and in revelation one sees only water.

The difference between these two levels in comprehension is:

The first level comes through man's comprehension "according to the capacity of man";

however, the second level is drawn down to the man from Above by the Holy One, blessed be He.

And one could say that this is the emphasis in the verse "Draw Your kindness to those who know You":

After one is in the category of "those who know You",

he attains knowledge of the Creator "according to the capacity of man",

one asks of the Most High that "Draw Your kindness to those who know You",

that He should draw down His kindness

(of the Holy One, blessed be He)

to the one who knows,

and the drawing down of Your kindness in the matter of knowledge,

and in a manner of "draw" - that through this "those who know You" become one thing with the Most High,

as the concept of drawing is according to halachah,

that through this the one who draws acquires the item and it becomes his property,

consequently through "Draw Your kindness to those who know You", "those who know You" become the property of the Holy One, blessed be He - consequently he can then understand matters which, from his own perspective as a created being

("according to the capacity of man")

he would not be able to understand.

And based on this it is understood how the two matters in the Rambam are consistent:

That which he says "The foundation of foundations and the pillar of wisdoms is to know etc.",

and together with this he says "The mind of man does not comprehend etc." - because "The mind of man does not comprehend etc." is as "man"

(and as man he can only understand through the comprehension of the positive according to his worth,

"according to the capacity of man"),

but through that which "Draw Your kindness to those who know You",

and he becomes a part of the property of the Holy One, blessed be He - he can indeed understand,

not from his own side,

but from the side of the Most High.

And analogous to this is the saying of the Rebbe

(the Rebbe Rashab) of blessed memory

(as my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe, transmitted it)¹²¹:

In general, the explanation of "If I knew Him, I would be Him"¹²²,

is that this cannot be. But the Rebbe of blessed memory said that at the time he studies Likkutei Torah he hears Atzmus,

"If I knew Him, I would be Him"

(with satisfaction).

And this is also connected with what is explained in Likkutei Torah at its beginning

(Parshat Pekudei¹²³)

regarding positive knowledge and negative knowledge,

that they correspond to positive commandments

(positive)

and negative commandments

(negative).

From this it is understood:

Just as a negative commandment is not merely a matter of negation

(do not do),

rather it is a negative commandment,

commandment from the term joining and connection¹²⁴,

that through the "do not do"

(the negation)

itself he becomes attached to the Most High - so too, negative knowledge

(which corresponds to negative commandments),

is not only as he explains in the Guide for the Perplexed¹²⁵ that through the comprehension of negation and the multiplicity of negations he comes to comprehension in the manner of comprehension of the positive

(on a higher level than one can attain through comprehension of the positive),

but moreover:

Through this one becomes one thing

(in a positive manner)

with the level which one has reached through negative knowledge.

And therefore it is also called negative knowledge - it is in the category of knowledge,

for knowledge is "from the term 'and the man knew Chavah'¹²⁶,

and it is a term of attachment and connection, that he connects his mind with a very strong and powerful bond and fixes his thought strongly in the greatness of the Infinite One, blessed be He, etc."¹²⁷,

until "and they shall be one flesh"¹²⁸,

and specifically through this is born true fear and love in his soul,

love and its branches and fear and its branches¹²⁹,

the root of positive commandments and the root of negative commandments¹³⁰,

that is, that through negative knowledge is produced

(in addition to the birth of fear,

the root of negative commandments)

also the birth of love

(the root of positive commandments),

- positive.

Afterwards he continues in the verse "And Your righteousness to the upright of heart" - and this is connected with the service of teshuvah

(the laws of teshuvah at the end of Sefer HaMada),

which causes a person to have an upright heart

(as above).

And as a reward for this, the "upright of heart" receive the drawing down of the righteousness of the Holy One, blessed be He.

[And this comes in continuation to "Draw Your kindness to those who know You",

because both matters (knowledge of Hashem - "Your kindness to those who know You",

and teshuvah - "upright of heart") must come together,

and each one adds to the other,

as follows].

Since "And Your righteousness to the upright of heart" is stated after "Your kindness to those who know You", it implies that in this there is an elevation relative to "Your kindness to those who know You"

(because in order, one places first the smaller thing and then the greater thing).

One must understand:

From the Gemara¹³¹ it emerges that kindness is higher than charity:

"Charity is for the poor, acts of kindness are both for the poor and for the rich",

The distinction in this is - whether one speaks from the perspective of above the order of progression or from the perspective of the order of progression:

Above the order of the chain of descent — regarding the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself — they are all poor.

Consequently, there specifically is the matter of charity, which is only for the poor.

However, the distinction between rich and poor exists only within the order of the chain of descent.

Therefore, there is the difference between kindness and charity:

that kindness is both for the poor and for the rich

(within the order of the chain of descent),

and charity is only for the poor

(within the order of the chain of descent).

And this is expressed in a great difference between the flow of kindness

(from the order of the chain of descent)

and the flow of charity

(from above the order of the chain of descent):

Since the flow of kindness comes from a level within the order of the chain of descent,

even when it is “Your kindness,”

the kindness of the Holy One, blessed be He

(as He stands within the order of the chain of descent),

it is nevertheless limited.

As we see regarding the twenty-six generations that were sustained by the kindness of the Holy One, blessed be He, which correspond to the twenty-six times “for His kindness endures forever”¹³²¹³³

(similar to what is stated here “Your kindness”),

and especially the generations before the flood,¹³⁴

that because of the extension of the kindness of the Holy One, blessed be He, to them,

they had longevity, etc.¹³⁵ — we see in actuality that before the generation of the flood, everyone lived less than a thousand years.

Consequently, it is understood that the extension of the kindness of the Holy One, blessed be He, to them was indeed a great flow

(longevity),

but nevertheless limited — less than a thousand years,

and a thousand years is a day of the Holy One, blessed be He,¹³⁶

and regarding the Most High, “Your years never end”¹³⁷ — consequently, it is understood that the extension of the kindness of the Holy One, blessed be He, to the first ten generations, etc., which is even less than a day of the Holy One, blessed be He, does not come close to a tenth,

all the more so not close to a fifth, and certainly not in the manner of “he should squander more than a fifth” of the Holy One, blessed be He,

for “Your years never end”!

However, charity, which is drawn from above the order of the chain of descent

(from a level regarding which they are all poor)

is above all measure and limitation,

higher than a tenth or a fifth or “he should squander more than a fifth” of the possessions of the Holy One, blessed be He.

And this is the difference between “Your kindness to those who know You” and “Your charity to the upright of heart”:

To “those who know You,” “Your kindness” is drawn,

the kindness of the Holy One, blessed be He.

But this is nevertheless limited;

however, to “the upright of heart”

(through the service of repentance)

“Your charity” is drawn,

the charity of the Holy One, blessed be He,

which is above measure and limitation.

And these two matters — “Your kindness to those who know You,”

and “Your charity to the upright of heart” — come together in the same verse,

as an introduction to the same book

(the Book of Knowledge)

— because both things,

knowledge of Hashem

(“Your kindness to those who know You”)

and repentance

(“upright of heart”),

must be present in a person. And each one adds to the other:

The more and deeper one’s knowledge of Hashem,

the more and greater is one’s repentance,

until it causes his repentance to be in a different manner:

The repentance that comes through contemplation of this world is not comparable,

or through the spheres,

or through the angels, etc.,¹³⁸

and in general — the repentance that comes through contemplation of that which fills all worlds or that which surrounds all worlds.

And the deeper one’s knowledge, the higher is his repentance.

So too, conversely — repentance contributes to knowledge of Hashem:

The more and deeper a person’s fear of Heaven,

the more it affects his understanding and comprehension in his study of Torah.

All the more so when he possesses not only the fear of Heaven of a righteous person,

but also the fear of Heaven of a penitent,

which contains the superiority that “in the place where penitents stand, even the completely righteous cannot stand,”¹³⁹

it is understood that then his understanding and comprehension of Divinity can be incomparably higher, etc.

And after having the introduction of this verse — “Draw Your kindness to those who know You, and Your charity to the upright of heart” — one can proceed in completeness to study all the laws in the book Yad HaChazakah,

beginning with the Book of Knowledge in general,

beginning with the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah,

“the foundation of foundations and the pillar of wisdoms,”

which simply means

(and there is no need to interpret it)

the foundations and wisdoms of the Torah — the “foundation” of all foundations in the Torah and the pillar of all wisdoms in the Torah is “to know that there is a First Existence, etc.,”

with all the details in the knowledge of Hashem that the Rambam discusses thereafter,

until the conclusion of the Book of Knowledge — the Laws of Repentance.

And this is, in general, the explanation of a matter and introduction to the Book of Knowledge — in accordance with what we are currently studying in the lessons on the Rambam’s book, the Book of Knowledge.

And in the Book of Knowledge itself, we are in the middle of the laws of the Foundations of the Torah. The daily lesson of Friday

(2 Iyar)

was chapters 4-6,

and today's lesson of the Sabbath day is chapters 7-9. And as will be discussed below in the lesson of 2 Iyar,

and the connection between the lesson of Friday and today's lesson of the Sabbath day.

May it be His will that this should also be the connection between Friday of the six thousand years that the world exists - the sixth millennium,

with Shabbos,

the seventh millennium,

in the true and complete redemption,

and a connection that comes about through the study of Torah

(including - the connection between the Torah lesson on the sixth day and on the seventh day),

which then is in pleasant ways and in ways of peace,

as discussed many times¹⁴⁰ regarding the matter of "Yaakov and Eisav mentioned in the Parsha"¹⁴¹,

that just as Eisav is mentioned in the Parsha

(in the Torah)

this is as he is in his source and root in holiness,

and from that aspect this is entirely in pleasant ways and ways of peace,

and as is also explained in Torah Ohr¹⁴² from the Zohar¹⁴³ that today we fulfill the matter of "hard work with mortar and bricks" as it is in the study of Torah - "mortar refers to kal vachomer and bricks refer to clarifying the halacha",

which is even through the revealed aspect of Torah,

all the more so through the inner aspect of Torah,

which is particularly connected to the Sabbath day

(as above section 11),

and out of joy and goodness of heart.

Maamar (in the manner of a sicha)

beginning "Rabbi Omer Eizo Hi Derech Yeshara etc."

It is also customary to study a verse from the weekly Parsha together with Rashi's commentary,

and a matter in the notes of the Tatte on the Zohar of our Parsha. And a Mishnah in Pirkei Avos that is studied on this Shabbos

(as is the custom of all to study Pirkei Avos on the Shabbasos between Pesach and Shavuos¹⁴⁴).

In our Parsha there is a perplexing Rashi. And indeed all the commentators raise a difficulty on this,

but according to their explanation of Rashi's words the difficulty becomes even greater.

With an introduction:

Rashi himself explicitly stated a rule in his commentary on the Torah¹⁴⁵ that "I have come only for the plain meaning of the verse". From this it is understood that this is a rule for all of Rashi's commentary on the Torah,

and it is not possible to argue about this.

There are other rules in Rashi's commentary - as discussed over the years - and regarding several of them one can argue,

but regarding the rules that are stated explicitly it is not possible to argue.

And in general - there are several types of rules in Rashi's commentary: (a)

Rules that Rashi wrote explicitly

(like "I have come only for the plain meaning of the verse"),

regarding which it is not proper to argue. (b)

Rules that emerge as a direct result

(without doubt)

from the rules that Rashi writes. Regarding these as well it is not possible to argue. (c)

Rules that are learned from other rules,

but it is not certain that this is consistent. One can argue about this. (d)

Rules by which matters in Rashi's commentary are explained

(but not that one has a direct lesson from Rashi's words from this).

Regarding this as well it is possible to argue.

But,

as mentioned,

the rule that "I have come only for the plain meaning of the verse" is stated explicitly in Rashi,

one cannot argue about this.

In addition to this there is another rule in Rashi about which one cannot argue:

Since "I have come only for the plain meaning of the verse",

Rashi does not address a matter that is not difficult in the plain meaning of the verse.

And another rule:

Rashi does not need to protect a five-year-old studying Scripture from a question he has on a verse or on Rashi's commentary from what he sees differently in the world.

Based on the introduction of these rules, a "blatant difficulty" in a perplexing Rashi in our Parsha becomes apparent:

In chapter 22 verse 28 it says:

"And an ox or a sheep,

it and its young you shall not slaughter on the same day".

And Rashi explains on "it and its young":

"It applies to the female,

that it is forbidden to slaughter the mother and the son or the daughter,

and it does not apply to males and it is permitted to slaughter the father and the son".

One must understand:

The simple explanation of "it and its young

(masculine form)

you shall not slaughter on the same day" is,

that it is forbidden to slaughter the father and the son. Now what is difficult in the verse,

and moreover - what compels Rashi to remove it from the simple explanation,

and innovate: (a):

"It" - not father,

rather "it applies to the female,

that it is forbidden to slaughter the mother and the son". And in addition (b)

not "it and its young" as it is written in the verse,

but also "the daughter"?!

Further:

Not only does Rashi innovate that "it and its son" means

(also)

"applies to a female, that it is forbidden to slaughter the mother and the son",

but he further excludes the father, that this explicitly does not mean father and son — "it does not apply to males, and it is permitted to slaughter the father and the son",

even though the verse states "it" in the masculine form!

This is contrary to the plain meaning,

and furthermore:

Even if Rashi had a necessity for this according to the plain meaning — what relevance is there to add that "it is permitted to slaughter the father and the son"?

The commentators¹⁴⁶ say that the source of Rashi is in Tractate Chullin.¹⁴⁷ However, this makes the question even stronger:

From the commentators it is understood that from the verse there is indeed no necessity for Rashi's explanation,

and the entire source is from the Gemara. This is contrary to the rule regarding Rashi, "I have come only for the plain meaning of Scripture",

and he does not bring what is stated in the Gemara unless it is necessary and relevant to the plain meaning.

The Sifsei Chachamim

[who collects explanations of Rashi's words in a way that they should be understandable to everyone,

also those who are not able to delve and debate, etc.]

brings,

that the source of Rashi's words is a gezeirah shavah from the sending away of the nest:

Just as the commandment of "it and its son" was stated regarding sons and fathers,

so too the commandment of sending away the nest is regarding sons and fathers,

thus "just as there it is regarding sons and the mother, as it is written¹⁴⁸ 'and the mother roosting',

so too here it is regarding sons and the mother".¹⁴⁹

But a five-year-old studying Chumash has not yet learned about the sending away of the nest,

and certainly not the gezeirah shavah in the Gemara in Chullin.

The question becomes even stronger:

That which Rashi writes simply "and it does not apply to males, and it is permitted to slaughter the father and the son" depends on a dispute in the Gemara¹⁵⁰ whether it applies to males or not,

and the Gemara remains in doubt as to whose opinion the law follows,

and so the Rambam¹⁵¹ rules

(and others)

"the matter is a doubt whether it applies to males or does not apply",

and therefore "if it is definitely known that this is its father, one may not slaughter both on one day,

and if he slaughtered, he does not receive lashes"

(because it is a doubt whether it applies to males);

and here Rashi writes with certainty "and it does not apply to males, and it is permitted to slaughter the father and the son"!

According to this, the question is even stronger:

In addition to the "blunt question" that Rashi's explanation is seemingly contrary to the plain meaning of "it and its son"

(masculine form),

and in addition to that which it is not understood why Rashi needs to add "and it does not apply to males, and it is permitted to slaughter the father and the son" — why does Rashi need to enter into the dispute in the Gemara, and furthermore write contrary to the ruling of the Rambam?!

Others wish to answer,

that Rashi comes to warn a child who will go to a slaughterhouse and see how they slaughter father and son on one day,

he will ask a question from that which he learned "it and its son you shall not slaughter on one day" — therefore Rashi needs to warn him by saying that "it applies to a female, that it is forbidden to slaughter the mother and the son or the daughter,

and it does not apply to males, and it is permitted to slaughter the father and the son".

But this is no answer:

(a) How does a five-year-old studying Chumash come to be in a slaughterhouse?!

(b) Even if he were in a slaughterhouse — how would he be able to know who is the father and who is his son?

He would need to approach the butcher and inquire:

Listen, butcher — can you tell me which of these oxen is the father and which is his son,

and whether you slaughter them on one day?!

But in general — the butcher also does not know,

and it is not relevant to him,

he is only concerned with slaughtering the oxen and cattle, etc.

And furthermore — one cannot know at all which of them is the father,

because there are many oxen,

and a length of time has already passed since conception, etc.

The only way one could know this is if there were one ox and one cow on an island,

then the offspring born would certainly be from these two. But without this, one cannot be certain. This is indeed one of the reasons why the prohibition is only on its mother and her son,

because one can know who its mother is.

(c) Even if one could know who the father is,

and the five-year-old sees that they slaughter father and son on one day — Rashi still does not need to warn him in his commentary on the Torah,

because it is a rule regarding Rashi

(as above)

that he does not need to address a question on the verse from what a five-year-old sees in the world.

And according to this general principle, a perplexing Rashi in three places is answered:

Regarding the prohibition "You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk" which appears three times in the Torah¹⁵²,

Rashi explains in all the places several details about this,

why it is stated three times,

and that this applies to every "tender young",

and other details. But he does not mention a fundamental matter in this:

When the five-year-old studying Scripture learns this prohibition, he can immediately ask:

He sees in practice in his own home that they are careful not only about "You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk",

but about eating meat and milk in general,

whatever milk it may be.

He asks:

From this prohibition

(in the three verses)

it only follows that "You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk",

but ordinary meat and milk is permitted?!

And the five-year-old understands that "You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk" is a matter with a reason*¹⁵²:

He knows how much the Torah warns about causing pain to another,

that one may not strike a slave,

including also cruelty to animals — that one may not strike an animal,

and "you shall surely help him"¹⁵⁴ regarding a donkey,

and so forth.

He also understands why "You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk" — because this is a matter of cruelty and causing pain to animals,

that one should take a kid and cook it etc. specifically in the milk of its mother! They did not find any other milk — except the milk of the mother of that kid...

But regarding ordinary milk, this reason is absent,

consequently the prohibition should not apply. And at home he sees that they are careful about meat and milk in every case.

And nevertheless, Rashi does not warn that the prohibition of meat and milk is not only regarding a kid in its mother's milk!

So the reason for this is as above:

Rashi does not need to warn about things that the five-year-old sees in the conduct of life in the world and so forth.

From this it is understood a fortiori and all the more so in Rashi in our portion:

If regarding "You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk" Rashi does not even add that the prohibition also applies to ordinary milk

(due to a question that the five-year-old studying Scripture has from what he sees),

even though this is not contrary to what he writes — then certainly Rashi did not need to write that "it and its young" is "not practiced with males and it is permitted to slaughter the father and its son"

(due to the question of the five-year-old that he sees in practice that they slaughter a father and its son on the same day)

— contrary to the simple interpretation of the verse!

With further nuances,

and as will be explained below.

In the notes of the father on the Zohar of our portion, he stands*¹⁵³ on what is stated in the Zohar¹⁵⁴ "Rabbi Yosi said: These four cups of that night

(of Passover)

why,

Rabbi Abba said etc. corresponding to the four redemptions etc.,

Rabbi Yehuda asked Rabbi Abba etc. why the Hallel is not completed all seven days etc."

And he explains in the note:

"Rabbi Yosi specifically asked about the cups,

because Yosi is related to cup,

for he is in the aspect of Malchut...

And Malchut is called cup...

Therefore the cups of Passover pertain to him and he asked why four cups. And the one who answered was specifically Rabbi Abba,

Rabbi Abba is in the aspect of Binah...

And the root of the four cups is from Binah,

the intellect of Imma...

And also that Malchut is called the cup of salvations is due to its receiving the salvations from Binah,

"And Rabbi Yehuda afterwards asked Rabbi Abba about the Hallel, why we do not complete it all seven days of Passover as on Sukkot,

Rabbi Yehoshua's aspect is Chessed...

And Hallel, from the term 'may light shine', is from the attribute of Chessed etc."

But he does not explain how the matter is in the service of man — in Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Yehuda,

and in the students of Torah in all generations,

since the Torah is eternal.

And as will be explained below.

In the second chapter of Pirkei Avot, a story is told¹⁵⁵ about Hillel:

"He also saw a skull floating on the surface of the water,

He said to it: Because you drowned others, they drowned you,

And in the end, those who drowned you will be drowned."

[This was discussed once,

but not in the details below.]

Simply, the content of Hillel's words — "Because you drowned others, they drowned you" — is that "the measure of the Holy One, blessed be He is measure for measure"¹⁵⁶. A person might think, then, that since someone drowned another

(and so forth),

and it must be measure for measure,

since today there is no court for capital punishment,

he will take it into his own hands! Therefore Hillel continues:

"In the end, those who drowned you will be drowned",

because this is not your mission to punish another*¹⁵⁶.

But one must understand:

Did Hillel then need to come to the skull in order to know that the conduct is measure for measure? Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai received from Hillel¹⁵⁷,

and regarding Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai the Gemara says¹⁵⁸ that "he did not leave out Scripture and Mishnah etc., the great matter and the small matter,

the great matter is the Account of the Chariot,

the small matter is the discussions of Abaye and Rava"

(as the Rambam also brings in the lesson of the 2nd of Iyar¹⁵⁹),

then all the more so is the greatness of the elevation of the teacher of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai understood,

Hillel — did he need to come to the skull to know that it is measure for measure?!

What is the general concept that Hillel said it "to her",

not to a human being,

but to the "skull"?!

Furthermore:

One must be careful about speaking words of Torah in a cemetery,

because of "he who mocks the poor"¹⁶⁰¹⁶¹. How then does it happen that when Hillel "saw one skull floating on the surface of the water",

he spoke Torah to it?!

The precision of "one skull"?

And as will be explained below.

Here is the place to discuss a matter in the lesson of the Rambam of the 2nd of Iyar,

"splendor within splendor",

and the connection thereof to today's lesson in the Rambam:

In the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah, end of chapter 4

(in the lesson of the 2nd of Iyar)

the Rambam writes about studying the matters of the "Account of Creation" and the "Account of the Chariot",

and regarding this there is a simple question,

which others wish to use to teach an incorrect plain meaning in the Rambam,

even though the Rambam himself warns about it

(as will be explained below).

And in this there is a connection also to today's lesson in the Rambam.

The Rambam writes there

(at the end of chapter 4):

"And the matters of these four chapters

[the first four chapters of the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah]

which are in these five commandments are what the early Sages call Pardes,

as they said, 'Four entered the Pardes.' And even though they were great ones of Israel and were great Sages,

not all of them had the power to know and comprehend all matters in their clarity. And I say that it is not fitting to stroll in the Pardes except for one whose belly is filled with bread and meat,

and bread and meat is to know the forbidden and the permitted and similar matters from the rest of the commandments. And even though these matters are called a small matter by the Sages,

for the Sages said¹⁵⁸ 'the great matter is the Account of the Chariot and the small matter is the discussions of Abaye and Rava,'

nevertheless, they are fitting to be given precedence. For they settle a person's mind first,

and furthermore, they are the great good that the Holy One, blessed be He, bestowed for the settlement of this world etc.

And it is possible that everyone, small and great, may know them etc."

It is entirely incomprehensible:

There is a contradiction within itself. The Rambam himself arranged that the first four chapters of his book speak about the "Account of the Chariot"

("in the first two chapters" of his book¹⁶²)

and the "Account of Creation"

("in the third and fourth chapters"¹⁶³),

and only after this come the laws "to know the forbidden and the permitted and similar matters from the rest of the commandments",

"the discussions of Abaye and Rava" — how then does this accord with what the Rambam himself writes at the conclusion of these chapters, "it is not fitting to stroll in the Pardes

("the matters of these four chapters")

except for one whose belly is filled with bread and meat...

to know the forbidden and the permitted etc."?!!

Furthermore:

In his introduction to the book Guide for the Perplexed, the Rambam writes that due to the depth of the matters in his book, he writes the matters in hints,

so that those who are not fitting for this should not be able to understand them;

In contrast, in the book Yad HaChazakah, the Rambam writes in his introduction to this book,

that he composed a book which contains "things that are clarified" from all the laws of the Torah,

"all of them in clear language",

"so that all the laws will be revealed to the small and the great",

"in short, so that a person should not need any other composition in the world regarding any law of the laws of Israel etc.,

a person reads the Written Torah first and afterwards reads this and knows from it the entire Oral Torah and does not need to read any other book between them",

i.e., that it is possible even for one who has studied nothing besides the Chumash;

and the Rambam wanted that one should study his book in order,

first the first four chapters and afterwards the subsequent chapters —

And nevertheless, the Rambam begins in the first four chapters to speak about "Maaseh Merkavah" and "Maaseh Bereshit,"

which are "deep matters"¹⁶⁴,

and "Maaseh Merkavah, even to one individual, we do not expound upon it unless he is wise and understands from his own knowledge, etc."¹⁶⁵,

and "Maaseh Bereshit is taught to an individual" but not to the public,

"because not every person has a broad intellect to grasp the explanation and elucidation of all things on their true basis"¹⁶⁶,

and the conclusion of the Rambam is - that "it is not proper to stroll in the Pardes except one whose belly is filled...

knowing the forbidden and the permitted",

"the discussions of Abaye and Rava",

what is discussed only later in the Rambam -

And all this while the Rambam writes his book for everyone,

"for the small, etc.",

in clear language,

also for one who has only studied the Written Torah,

he knows nothing more,

and he precedes that one should first of all learn the first four chapters about Maaseh Merkavah and Maaseh Bereshit,

where it does not speak about "the discussions of Abaye and Rava",

and all the more so in the Written Torah

(which a person reads first before the book Yad HaChazakah)

it does not speak at all about Tannaim,

all the more so not about the discussions of Abaye and Rava!

In other words - the order in the Rambam is from the difficult to the easy:

First of all, he writes his introduction that the book is for everyone,

also for one who knows only Chumash. Afterwards, the Rambam begins to speak about "Maaseh Merkavah"

(which is deeper than Maaseh Bereshit¹⁶⁷),

afterwards about "Maaseh Bereshit",

afterwards he says that one should not learn in such an order - "I say that it is not proper to stroll in the Pardes except one whose belly is filled...

knows the forbidden and the permitted, etc." "The discussions of Abaye and Rava",

and afterwards he writes the forbidden and the permitted,

"the discussions of Abaye and Rava" in the fourteen books afterwards!!

One must say that the Rambam certainly guarded against such an obvious contradiction in his words.

The Rambam indeed guarded against it himself - precisely his language "a person is not proper to stroll in the Pardes except one whose belly is filled, etc."¹⁶⁸:

He specifically uses the language "a person is not proper to stroll in the Pardes",

and not the language "a person is not proper to enter the Pardes",

like the language that he writes previously in the halachah *¹⁶⁸ "four entered the Pardes" - because by this he emphasizes that specifically "to stroll" in the Pardes is not proper "except one whose belly is filled, etc.":

The intention of the Rambam with "to stroll" is to that which he writes previously "to know and to grasp all things on their true basis":

The explanation of "to stroll" is - that he stops and contemplates the inner aspects of the matters of Maaseh Merkavah and Maaseh Bereshit,

until he derives from this pleasure and delight¹⁶⁹,

similar to a person who strolls in a garden literally - as the matter of strolling in a garden is brought as a matter connected with pleasure and delight in many places in Torah and Midrash¹⁷⁰,

and in the Zohar¹⁷¹ it is brought¹⁷² regarding the Supreme One and the souls of the righteous in the Garden of Eden, etc. - the stroll in the Pardes is connected with pleasure and delight,

because there is a better atmosphere there,

and better trees and fruits,

as it is stated in Song of Songs - so this kind of "stroll in the Pardes" in Torah

(Maaseh Merkavah and Maaseh Bereshit),

that he should enter into it to stroll "to know and to grasp all things on their true basis",

until in a manner of pleasure and delight, etc. - this is not proper except for one whose belly is filled, etc.;

However, the study of these matters

(of the "Pardes",

Maaseh Merkavah and Maaseh Bereshit)

in the first four chapters,

is only in a manner of "entry" into the Pardes,

he only learns the content of the matters,

as follows - and such study can and must be before the study of "the forbidden and the permitted, etc.",

"the discussions of Abaye and Rava" - as the order of the halachot that the Rambam arranged,

first the first four chapters about "Maaseh Merkavah" and "Maaseh Bereshit",

and afterwards about "the forbidden and the permitted, etc."

And the explanation of this - that the first four chapters are only in a manner of "entry" into the Pardes

(in the matters of Maaseh Merkavah and Maaseh Bereshit):

In summary of the first two chapters, that "the explanation of all the principles in these two chapters is called the Account of the Chariot" - the Rambam writes:

"These matters that we have said regarding this subject in these two chapters are like a drop from the sea of what needs to be explained regarding this subject." And he continues:

"The early sages commanded not to expound upon these matters except to one individual alone, and he must be wise and understanding from his own knowledge,

and afterward they transmit to him chapter headings and inform him of a hint of the matter, and he understands from his own knowledge and knows the end of the matter and its depth. And these matters are exceedingly deep, and not every intellect is fit to bear them, etc."

Similarly, in summary of the third and fourth chapters where he speaks about the "Account of Creation" - the Rambam writes:

"All these matters that we have spoken regarding this subject are like a few drops and they are deep matters,"

although "they are not like the depth of the first and second chapters." "And thus the early sages commanded that these matters are not to be expounded upon in public, but to one individual these matters are made known and they are taught to him."

And then he continues to speak about the distinction between the "Account of the Chariot" and the "Account of Creation,"

that "the Account of the Chariot is not expounded upon even to one individual unless he is wise and understanding from his own knowledge, [then] chapter headings are transmitted to him"

(as he said earlier at the end of chapter two),

and "the subject of the Account of Creation is taught to an individual even though he does not understand it from his own knowledge, etc." "And why is it not taught to the public?

Because not every person has a broad intellect to grasp the explanation and elucidation of all matters in their clarity."

From all this it emerges

that in the first four chapters the Rambam only gives forth

(as he explicitly emphasizes)

"a drop from the sea" of the subjects in the Account of the Chariot

(which is even less than "chapter headings" that are given to one who is wise and understanding from his own knowledge (and even "chapter headings" are also only points, etc.),

and "a few drops" of the subjects in the Account of Creation,

i.e., entirely incomparable to how these subjects are in their completeness.

And in addition, the Rambam emphasizes

that "these matters are exceedingly deep" and not everyone can understand them, etc.

To the extent that even regarding the "four who entered the orchard,"

who are true great ones,

the Rambam writes: "And even though they were great ones of Israel, not all of them had the capacity to know and grasp all matters in their clarity."

And as the Rambam also emphasizes in the first chapter many times regarding the knowledge of God

(as discussed earlier (section 22)),

that what is written in the Torah "the hand of God,

the eyes of God,

the ears of God, and the like of these matters,

all is according to the understanding of human beings who recognize only physical bodies, and the Torah spoke in the language of human beings,

and all are metaphors, etc.,

and the truth of the matter, the mind of man does not comprehend nor can it grasp and investigate it,

and this is what the verse said: 'Can you find the investigation of God?' etc.,"

"There is no capacity in the mind of a living human being, who is composed of body and soul, to grasp the truth of this matter in its clarity." And he continues:

"And since this is so,

all these matters and the like of them that are stated in the Torah and in the words of the prophets are all allegory and metaphor,

as it is said: 'He who sits in heaven laughs,' etc.,

about all of them the sages said: 'The Torah spoke in the language of human beings,' etc."

As he also speaks in the Laws of Repentance,

that "He, may He be exalted, and His knowledge are one,

and the mind of man cannot grasp this matter in its clarity, and just as man has no capacity to grasp and find the truth of the Creator, etc., so too man has no capacity to grasp and find the knowledge of the Creator,

this is what the prophet says: 'For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,'

and since this is so, we have no capacity to know how the Holy One, blessed be He, knows all creations and actions, etc." And the Ra'avad indeed writes there - that if the Rambam says that one does not know,

why does he speak about it?!]

That is to say,

that in the first four chapters the Rambam does not explain the subjects of the Account of the Chariot, etc., in a manner of "strolling in the orchard" - in understanding and comprehension,

"to know and grasp all matters in their clarity,"

but only in a manner of "entry" into the orchard alone,

he gives only a knowledge of the existence of the subjects,

that such and such is the existence,

there is the existence of a "First Existent," etc.,

but he does not explain it,

and on the contrary - he says that it cannot be understood in understanding and comprehension. And what he says that "the Torah spoke in the language of human beings" - is not an explanation,

but on the contrary:

thereby he conceals the matters, that "the truth of the matters, the mind of man does not comprehend nor can it grasp and investigate it."

And based on this, the content of the words of the Rambam at the end of chapter four is understood:

As a summary of what he spoke about in the first four chapters regarding the subjects of "Maaseh Merkavah" and "Maaseh Bereshit" only in the manner of "a drop from the sea" and "like a bucket drawn [from the deep]",

and that one cannot understand the true essence of the matters etc. - the Rambam writes:

"And the subjects of these four chapters which are in these five commandments are what the sages call Pardes,

as they said, 'Four entered the Pardes,'

and although they were great ones of Israel and were great sages, not all of them had the power to know and comprehend all matters in their clarity."

And then the Rambam begins a new subject: